tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post1360387046305238908..comments2017-09-26T17:09:27.603-05:00Comments on Althouse: "The alarmist view that our fragile geopolitical position requires abandoning our commitment to preventing Star Chamber proceedings."Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger95125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-59879033236189452932008-06-26T01:02:00.000-05:002008-06-26T01:02:00.000-05:00Revenant said... Melissa Hoffer, a lawyer represen...<I>Revenant said... <BR/>Melissa Hoffer, a lawyer representing some of the detainees at Guantanamo<BR/><BR/>In other words, an Al Qaeda employee.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>i hope all lawyers turn you down when your day in court comes.The Exaltedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18030346881185443267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-17262278599950405532008-06-24T16:50:00.000-05:002008-06-24T16:50:00.000-05:00She lost me at the line "ladies and gentlemen of t...She lost me at the line "ladies and gentlemen of the jury."<BR/><BR/>Pretentious twits.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16517956537865658903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-10627955434839649042008-06-23T20:33:00.000-05:002008-06-23T20:33:00.000-05:00The adequate substitute for habeas in these Gitmo ...The adequate substitute for habeas in these Gitmo cases is to take all remaining Gitmo prisoners, strap parachutes on their backs, show them which cord to pull, and put 'em on a transport plane over Afghanistan and boot their asses out of the door at the appropriate altitude to make a safe landing, over meadows and farmlands or someplace they won't get dashed to bits on rock cliffs. That way, they get to take their fate into their own hands, and we wash our hands of them. <BR/><BR/>Any way you look at it, it's a better deal for them than a bullet to the head or a hangman's noose.veni vidi vicihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14720172060048711733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-21505588991220135682008-06-23T19:38:00.000-05:002008-06-23T19:38:00.000-05:00Revenant: Those Brit I was talking about were capt...Revenant: Those Brit I was talking about were captors, imprisoning our good guys in ships just off old NYC. Many of those poor Yankee souls died from sickness and other cases of maltreatment.<BR/><BR/>Don't know where we kept Brits we captured but do believe Gen'l Cornwallis's Yorktown bunch were shipped off to NYC to be held there until the treaty of Paris was signed when the Brits released their hold on the town.<BR/><BR/>Guess that SCOTUS today would demand that Gen'l Geo. Washington show what evidence was used to detain Cornwallis's scabby crew, even for such a short time, within the bounds of the original 13, or else let them free so they might continue ravaging old Virginia! Wonderful, eh?OldGrouchyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14855909337030182350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-80216649151824451242008-06-23T18:32:00.000-05:002008-06-23T18:32:00.000-05:00Why not simply issue an Executive Order, or work w...<I>Why not simply issue an Executive Order, or work with Congress to pass a law formally suspending the writ for combatant prisoners captured outside the United States who are determined by the Secretary of Defense to be members of or supporters of Al Qaeda or other known terrorist groups, until the cessation of hostilities?</I><BR/><BR/>The simple answer is "because they don't have to". Prisoners captured outside the United States during wartime have never had habeas rights. The authors of the Constitution obviously didn't intend for them to. Indeed, those British troops captured INSIDE the United States weren't even granted habeas rights, although for the most part that happened before the Constitution was written.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-43427878491949472142008-06-23T18:29:00.000-05:002008-06-23T18:29:00.000-05:00Melissa Hoffer, a lawyer representing some of the ...<I>Melissa Hoffer, a lawyer representing some of the detainees at Guantanamo</I><BR/><BR/>In other words, an Al Qaeda employee.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-71855759662332899282008-06-23T12:15:00.000-05:002008-06-23T12:15:00.000-05:00Hmmmm."Melissa Hoffer, a lawyer representing some ...Hmmmm.<BR/><BR/>"Melissa Hoffer, a lawyer representing some of the detainees at Guantanamo, describes the horrific abuse and torture the detainees are subject to."<BR/><BR/>Yeah horrifying stuff:<BR/><BR/>1. Fruit cup.<BR/><BR/>2. Clean beds<BR/><BR/>3. Medical care<BR/><BR/>4. Soccer balls<BR/><BR/>...<BR/><BR/>So tell me who was it that authorized handing off captured terrorists to third party torturers?<BR/><BR/>Bill Clinton and Al Gore.<BR/><BR/>All of you leftoid anti-torture BS artists are completely full of crap. If Obama is President I fully expect each and every single one of you to start justifying him authorizing torture with the most amazing sophistry.<BR/><BR/>But then again I am already starting to see you leftoids wriggling on the chickenhawk hook.memomachinehttp://profile.typekey.com/memomachine/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-59237155050145348352008-06-23T09:41:00.000-05:002008-06-23T09:41:00.000-05:00This ruling just means that troops on the ground w...This ruling just means that troops on the ground will shoot more jihadis, rather than risk capturing them and having them walk free only to kill more people later on. <BR/><BR/>Because, it doesn't matter what the USSC says about the trial end; the US Army and Marines don't face the same engagement restrictions that the police do.SGT Tedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00184808889760136366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-13866627690176681862008-06-23T00:07:00.000-05:002008-06-23T00:07:00.000-05:00Melissa Hoffer, a lawyer representing some of the ...Melissa Hoffer, a lawyer representing some of the detainees at Guantanamo, describes the horrific abuse and torture the detainees are subject to.<BR/><BR/>— <A HREF="http://www.tv5.fr/TV5Site/plaidoiries/pop_plaid.php?plaid=7" REL="nofollow">Video</A><BR/><BR/><B>Warning!</B> The vivid descriptions of torture and abuse will cause great excitment and enthusiasm for many of the conservative readers of this blog.<BR/><BR/><B>Note:</B> Conservative icon <A HREF="http://mediamatters.org/items/200806190010" REL="nofollow">Michael Savage wants to execute Ms. Hoffer</A>.<BR/><BR/>I always laugh a little bit when I remember that the advocates of this depravity call themselves "values voters" and "pro-life."Versohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02540272057882328393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-48339416905200881382008-06-22T21:53:00.000-05:002008-06-22T21:53:00.000-05:00Hmmmm.Here's a question that I have and I have yet...Hmmmm.<BR/><BR/>Here's a question that I have and I have yet to see a good answer. If you have a link to a good answer then I'm all for it.<BR/><BR/>Specifically: What are the rules of evidence, chain of evidence and how are earth are US Marines supposed to collect it during a firefight?memomachinehttp://profile.typekey.com/memomachine/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-90772509311174118672008-06-22T21:50:00.000-05:002008-06-22T21:50:00.000-05:00Hmmmm.@ former law student"We've never had a so-ca...Hmmmm.<BR/><BR/>@ former law student<BR/><BR/>"We've never had a so-called war on terror before."<BR/><BR/>Of course we've had "war on terror" before. We've had terrorism of various kinds in the continental USA and in American territories for over two centuries!<BR/><BR/>WTF?<BR/><BR/>What? Never read up on the labor wars during the unionization heyday? How about the COIN in the Philippines in 1899-1902? <BR/><BR/>For God's sake! Did Bloody Kansas somehow escape you?memomachinehttp://profile.typekey.com/memomachine/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-28637159702886167232008-06-22T18:01:00.000-05:002008-06-22T18:01:00.000-05:00Some O'Briens might well be Scots, not at all sure...Some O'Briens might well be Scots, not at all sure what Maloneys are through! We of Scot, Irish, English, Scot Irish, Welsh, Dane, Swede, French and German ancestry do appreciate some ethnic jokes but none at all about the USA Constitution. <BR/><BR/>The last so-called USA Star Chamber hearings resulted in tossing dissidents and other malcontents into St. Elizabeth's by good old FDR. Epstein's favorite demon did nothing except spy on enemy agents and hold those who'd been fighting us in the WoT.<BR/><BR/>Regardless, SCOTUS has shaken its bony finger at the Admin. and Congress but has said nothing about how to deal with the after-effects of its pontification. SCOTUS is a little like all of us in that it scolds and leave us hanging in the wind, which we do NOT need. So much for the natter in this post.<BR/><BR/>As for Cedarford, you are a racist, an anti-Semite, and IMHO a raging idiot. I therefore do remove my qualifier from before and say: "Go to Hell and roast with your black-shirted buddies!" Also, roast your wieners upon your burning copy of the PoZ!OldGrouchyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14855909337030182350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-71419476185726361142008-06-22T16:16:00.000-05:002008-06-22T16:16:00.000-05:00we've never done in war beforeWe've never had a so...<I>we've never done in war before</I><BR/><BR/>We've never had a so-called war on terror before. The War on Terror is a bastardized concept ginned up in response to terrorist-piloted Boeings flying into our buildings. The WoT seems to have as much in common with the War on Drugs as it has with war as we've understood it for the past 233 years or so. In fact, I would say that the War on Terror is to war as Same-sex Marriage is to marriage. It is little wonder that concepts derived from wars between sovereign nations have scant applicability to this so-called war. When we were at war with Germany, any German national was an enemy alien, to be interned for the duration of the war. But now that we're at war with terror, we must first show that aliens are in fact terrorists before we can deprive them of their liberty. Those who actually shoot at us make our case for us. In contrast, we're going to have to justify any seizure of Bradley University grad students.<BR/><BR/>Now, the Geneva Conventions are treaties. But treaties are not the final authority in international law; state custom is. If we don't treat other countries' nationals per the Geneva Conventions, that demonstrates that our practice is to ignore the Geneva Conventions. Then in response other foreign countries won't treat our nationals per the Geneva Conventions -- and that was exactly Churchill's point.former law studenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15196697206046544350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-7948301623117322622008-06-22T13:45:00.000-05:002008-06-22T13:45:00.000-05:00Wow, Threadkiller! Cedarford does have something ...Wow, Threadkiller! Cedarford does have something other than Jourette's Syndrome, not sure what. Someone who believes in individual liberty should be more careful about lumping people in groups. At least he corrected his misspelling of "Scots," but the O'Briens and Maloneys are vile Catholic Irish, not saintly Scots.<BR/><BR/><I>Rich Jews aren't responsible for all evil</I><BR/>Their ideas of social justice require they leave some evil for poor Jews to be responsible for.<BR/><BR/>A nasty joke after the above post, but I couldn't resist.Ralphhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07915708905660273961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-19640266015564908472008-06-22T13:37:00.000-05:002008-06-22T13:37:00.000-05:00Cedarford...Put a sock in it. You're a smart guy. ...Cedarford...<BR/><BR/>Put a sock in it. You're a smart guy. Until you start into your Jew-bating fetish. Then you make yourself look like an idiot. <BR/><BR/>There's no place in conservatism for that crap. There's no place in civilized discourse for it. There's no place in human decency for it.<BR/><BR/>Don't be an ass.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16517956537865658903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-67792119598826708862008-06-22T11:08:00.000-05:002008-06-22T11:08:00.000-05:00Drill SGT - 3.Rich Jews aren't responsible for all...Drill SGT - <I>3.Rich Jews aren't responsible for all evil</I><BR/><BR/>Obviously. Nor are Muslims responsible for ALL terrorism.<BR/><BR/>Old grouchy may have had a cow about me criticizing the progressive Jews who have led the effort for more terrorist civil liberties and exposed US counterterror efforts. Tough.<BR/><BR/>If the ACLU had had a Filipino-American Excecutive Director for 40+ years and an majority of it's Board and money had come from the Filipino ranks seeking an aggressive agenda to bypass US democratic institutions and use lawsuits as a way to force their will on others. And prior to that, the Filipinos were over half the members and nearly all the leadership of the Communist Party. Given that, presumably it would be acceptable for those who dislike Communism and Hard Left agenda being shoved down America's throat by Filipino-American judges and others at the behest of mostly Filipino lawyers and financers, <BR/>to criticize Filipinos. Who form a small part of the US population, for their disproportionate influence, attacks on other American's values, and for their anti-democratic, behind closed doors machinations. I suspect the criticism and questions about the major role of a small minority in running the show would be commonly asked.<BR/><BR/>But over half the names of ACLU leadership and finance and the names of the lawyers filing the bulk of the lawsuits on behalf of a shill or front person - are not Filipino. <BR/><BR/>Similarly, if Scotts-Irish were regularly revealing classified information and endangering US agents and soldiers overseas with divulgence of intelligence sources and methods, we would say why are the Scotts-Irish meddling so actively?? And through Scotts-Irish ownership of much of the media and key policy positions - Americans are regularly assailed as atrocity-committers and torturers of innocent enemy in hundreds of fromt page stories and TV news pieces sent to the ME and Afghanistan where they caused deadly riots and spur recruitment with relentless "America's shame!! propaganda delivered on a silver platter to our greatest enemies by the Scots-Irish, we might ask, what is up with the patriotism and loyalty of the Scots-Irish??<BR/><BR/>If the Scots-Irish then led on matters of terrorists civil rights and "due process rights of enemy combatants".....the American public would be wondering what the hell has gotten into the Maloneys, the O'Briens, MacDouglas types in courtrooms. And in circles where really rich Scots-Irish were funding a range of Scots-Irish led Fronts and Foundations dedicated to paralyzing surveillance, freeing terrorists, and as judges, Scots Irish were dominant voices of the hard left???<BR/><BR/>But the names aren't Filipino or Scots-Irish. They are instead almost 50% names like Neier, Stroessen, Feingold, Ruth Ginsburg, George Soros, the Sultzbergers, Boxer, Nadler, Wasserman-Schultz, Peter Allen, Mark Cuban, Geffen, Schumer, Bernie Sanders, Eric Litchblau, James Risen, Dave Axelrod, Penny Pritzker, Feinstein, Medea Benjamin and the other Jewish ladies of Code Pink, etc.<BR/><BR/>And while other groups influence on foreign policy, politics, and the courts is freely discussed - like Cuban-Americans and the black political machine of certain cities, the dominant place Japanese-Americans have had in Hawaii for 60 years, various areas of "white male control" - for the good or bad they do, they can be discussed...even blacks now, after a period where they had relative immunity to criticism that began in the early 70s and began slowly ending in the mid-80s though residual fears of criticism of certain black things = racism, persists.<BR/><BR/>With Jews, they realized quickly that sypmathy for the Holocaust gave them power in the moral authority of victimhood and the notion that Jewish activities and progressive or transnational agenda ambitions should ideally never be criticized. Because, you see, Jews suffered when people were free to criticize them controlling major parts of economies or were trying to transform nations with lawsuits and radical politics.<BR/><BR/>That logic held for a while in the USA, but it has been 70 years, and Jews are not the only people with a long pedigree of "persecution". Blacks, Celts, mestisos, Filipinos, Chinese, Scots, Slavs (the slave people), Russians and Euros who came from millenia of peasantry and serfdom all have "long historical persecution" claims - but we criticize them freely if we believe they act against the interest of American society.<BR/>In recent years, Jews themselves have been the foremost critics of Southern Whites and Christian religious fundamentalism - with sometimes open derision and belittlement of those groups.<BR/><BR/>Some in America besides Jews even seek and briefly get the Immunity Amulet from others questioning their actions. Blacks briefly, Muslims now, gays perhaps - but no group with such power and influence with more agressive efforts to reshape the rest of America to their suiting over the interests of others has had the immunity from criticism as long as the Jews. The only group claiming criticism of their fellow ethnics or even their nation, Israel - is a special form of bigotry that needs criminal laws to safeguard them from any criticism.<BR/> <BR/>Well, sorry, but I think it is healthy for America to say the immunity of Jews from questioning on matters like excessive lawsuits to force leftist change on America, Wall Street corruption, dominance of key industries and aspects of US foreign policy are not forbidden. They are over after a decent interlude for recovery from WWII's slaughters, just as it was proper to be solicitous of other ethnicities significant suffering which is not discussed much in US schools, but certainly Greek, Serbian, Polish, Indonesian, Filpino, Chinese, and Russian schools.. <BR/><BR/>Criticism is healthy - and it should not go in the direction the Jewish organizations succeded in imposing in much of Europe in state censorship or in criminal court, such as the Canadian Jewish Congress got passed in Canada in law creating the Human Rights Tribunals under 13(1) originally to persecute "critics of Jewish economic power, anti-semetic speech, holocaust deniers, "illegitimate criticism of Israel".Cedarfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00602418702398818596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-13187752572789506202008-06-22T10:41:00.000-05:002008-06-22T10:41:00.000-05:00exactly my point! Why not simply issue an Executiv...exactly my point! <BR/><BR/>Why not simply issue an Executive Order, or work with Congress to pass a law formally suspending the writ for combatant prisoners captured outside the United States who are determined by the Secretary of Defense to be members of or supporters of Al Qaeda or other known terrorist groups, until the cessation of hostilities?<BR/><BR/>Given that Congress has already authorized the use of military force against Al Qaeda all over the world, and given that Al Qaeda has already declared itself to be at war with the United States, and has actually attacked us within our own borders, it would be hard for the Supreme Court to argue that the suspension clause does not apply (though Kennedy and Ginsburg are apparently dumber than I ever gave them credit for. I shouldn't underestimate them.)<BR/><BR/>Of course, what these chuckleheads have done with this ruling has been to state that the President has unconstitutionally suspended a writ that he is constitutionally entitled to suspend.<BR/><BR/>Very nice logic.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16517956537865658903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-42744763293926635352008-06-22T10:29:00.000-05:002008-06-22T10:29:00.000-05:00Fls spouted, "do not understand a basic principle ...Fls spouted, <BR/><BR/>"do not understand a basic principle of International Law which is to treat others as you would wish to be treated"<BR/><BR/>Can you please point me to the treaty, signed by a President and approved by the Senate, that codifies the Bible's Golden Rule?<BR/><BR/>Thanks in advance.EnigmatiCorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00596092527748619763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-17368310366116038132008-06-22T08:32:00.001-05:002008-06-22T08:32:00.001-05:00I wrote: "The Court said it was an unconstitutiona...I wrote: "The Court said it was an unconstitutional suspension of the writ because Congress did not provide "an adequate substitute" for habeas. "<BR/><BR/>Beldar said: "I don't think Congress purported to invoke the Suspension Clause and suspend the writ via the Military Commissions Act."<BR/><BR/>That's right. The Court wrote: "The MCA does not purport to be a formal suspension of the writ; and the Government, in its submissions to us, has not argued that it is. Petitioners, therefore, are entitled to the privilege of habeas corpus to challenge the legality of their detention." The question was then "whether the statute stripping jurisdiction to issue the writ avoids the Suspension Clause mandate because Congress has provided adequate substitute procedures for habeas corpus," and, looking at the procedures in the DTA, concluded that it was "an unconstitutional suspension of the writ."Ann Althousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1816214020421769052008-06-22T08:29:00.000-05:002008-06-22T08:29:00.000-05:00disrespecting the rights of foreigners leads direc...<I>disrespecting the rights of foreigners leads directly to foreigners disrespecting the rights of you and your fellow citizens.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't buy the whole "what goes around comes around" argument. By that logic, you're essentially saying we did something to deserve 9/11 and all the attacks before. And all we ever need to do is to <I>be nice</I> and they'll all back off. Neither of these is true, and in fact, the enemy we're facing now becomes only more fierce as they perceive weakness.<BR/><BR/>There are plenty of good arguments for this ruling (I don't happen to agree with them), but this is not one of them.knoxwhirledhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13231876226573540476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-65813214789406803342008-06-22T07:35:00.000-05:002008-06-22T07:35:00.000-05:00OG said in part...The issue of AA's post, in my op...<I>OG said in part...The issue of AA's post, in my opinion, is Boumediene conferring rights HC upon GITMO detainees, which we've never done in war before. </I><BR/><BR/>Actually Epstein and the SCOTUS turn the Geneva Convention (GC) seemingly on its head.<BR/><BR/>tutorial. The GC's (and there are several) attempt to civilize warfare by prescribing rules and processes for conducting war and handling prisoners. Writ simple: <I>Play nice or we will hang you after the war, and if you follow the rules, when we catch you, you get food and fair treatment</I><BR/><BR/>Now our opponents don't follow the rules. The correct way to disabuse them of this behavior according to the precepts that drove the creation of the GC would be to hang the leaders and treat the trooops caught out of uniform (etc) with less benefits than are normal for POWs.<BR/><BR/>That way (the Churchill/Hitler story aboe) people get the message and behavior improves<BR/><BR/>Epstein and the SCOTUS seem to have turned that around however. Now we are in a state where we are according NON-POWs more rights (HC for example than folks (POWs) who follow the rules. Keep that up and you get more folks breaking out of those restrictive GC rules, not fewer. Why play by disadvantgous GC rules if you get the same or better treatment by NOT doing so.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Footnotes to Cedarford:<BR/>1. i think it was Nov 42 in North Africa not 41<BR/>2. Actually the Brits hung slavers. well actually all slavers except those flying the US flag. Two reasons, 1, we had our own anti-slavery patrols and we boarded all but Brit ships as well, and 2, we went to war when they boarded our ships, and we'd do it again.<BR/>3.Rich Jews aren't responsible for all evilThe Drill SGThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16394309533144027391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-37332855094229595352008-06-22T06:42:00.000-05:002008-06-22T06:42:00.000-05:00Cedarford: A.) "And funnier still to have some ACL...Cedarford: A.) "And funnier still to have some ACLU Jew" . B.) "Almost immediately, the ACLU, Jewish-run human rights"<BR/><BR/>WTF are you trying to say? Your words above, which are from your comments for this post, are anti-Semitic and have no bearing on AA's post or in regard to any other post for that matter. I would agree with many of your other comments but strongly disagree with your anti-Semitic tone and so-called subtle anti-Semitic hints.<BR/><BR/>If you're in fact an anti-Semite then please go join David Duke and his KKK buddies and roast in hell.<BR/><BR/>The issue of AA's post, in my opinion, is Boumediene conferring rights HC upon GITMO detainees, which we've never done in war before. Perhaps SCOTUS would enlighten us all by saying how we are to fight this war and how we detain anyone caught not in uniform during such a conflict. Unless and until Boumediene is overturned (And, when would that be?) we are stuck with it, which I feel means that many fewer such combatants will be detained, exceptions will happen. <BR/><BR/>The issue of how we want our troops to be treated by others has been covered well by "Geneva." A corollary is that many of the USA's recent warring opponents have not bothered at all to follow Geneva. We always followed Geneva since it was agreed to, and the older so-called laws of war, with exceptions brought out by other Yanks and dealt with by our courts or our military tribunals. The argument of "how do we want our troops to be treated" was answered years ago in Geneva. The issue is now and has been how are we to treat the combatants we have, whether uniformed or so-called illegal combatants and especially the latter variety. SCOTUS needs to go beyond its meager pronouncement and enlighten us quickly. Perhaps Article III does in fact supercede the first two articles in all matters?<BR/><BR/>Churchill's referred to admonishment to Hitler was proper and one we might have tried with Japan but I'm not certain of that. But I do know that Japan did not give a fig about our feelings nor would AH have except his military types did care. Lastly, there have been many cases of wartime cruelty (Much of which did lead to Geneva in 1949) some by ourselves during the Civil War by both sides, some on Brit prison ships during our War for Independence, but recall that war is not a tea party, simply somewhat better regulated now? None of that matters regarding Boumediene, although it does make for interesting natter.OldGrouchyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14855909337030182350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-92196162672726189832008-06-22T04:10:00.000-05:002008-06-22T04:10:00.000-05:00matthew said... I personally disagree with the Cou...<I>matthew said... <BR/>I personally disagree with the Court's decision here, but I think FLS is absolutely right. The Golden Rule exists, we should treat people the way we want US citizens to be treated. That isn't constitutional - and shouldn't have made it into a court decision - it's just ethical.</I><BR/><BR/>Fine, Matthew, except what you are describing is not ethical behavior, but stupidity.<BR/>If the enemy is mutilating then chopping heads off soldiers and civilians and doing everything that fails to comply with Geneva to gain unlawful advantage, the sappy maxim <I>we should treat people the way we want US citizens to be treated</I> is already being violated. Which flies in the face of Pope Benedicts academic reflection on ethics and moral behavior - it is unreasonable to maintain that if there is no reciprocity, only one-sided punishment by the side breaking with norms.<BR/><BR/>Churchill applied his own Golden rule on rumors that Hitler, in a rage, had threatened to shoot all the Allied bomber crews. Basically in a do onto others as they do onto you, Churchill said if they found out POWs were being killed he would happily kill as many German POWs as it took to disabuse the Nazis of that behavior. And instructed his diplomats in Lisbon and Zurich to convey that if Hitler did it, his captured Luftwaffe guys were toast. It worked. No mass executions of Allied aircrew POWs happened, and with reciprocity, the German POWs were safe, too.<BR/><BR/>matthew - <I> The US, as a matter of policy, should be better than this. Does anyone honestly believe that we couldn't prove in a habeas corpus proceeding that the Gitmo prisoners are enemy combatants? </I><BR/><BR/>Why, yes, in fact. Certainly enough gray area and lack of criminal acts that no civilian court will be able to prosecute 90% of the terrorists for any crime...even conspiracy, which is a pretty high bar that requires direct, replete with scads of official evidence with a custody chain, direct knowledge or participation in a criminal act.<BR/><BR/> All AQ trained in terror camps were given cover stories - "I was on a quest to see pure Islam in action in the Hindu Kush, I was invited to a wedding party in Khandahar by a nice chap I met in Karachi." Or, I'm shocked! I was just a simple cleric student who carried an AK-47 alongside all my friends for protection against bandits. All men in Afghanistan carry weapons."<BR/><BR/>Though I admit it would be funny to see each case become a 30-40 million dollar fiasco, unless charges are dropped.<BR/><BR/>And funnier still to have some ACLU Jew explain to US soldiers that the US guarantees their enemies great treatment, gourmet meals, free lawyers, and release after only a few months or years no matter what death and brutality the enemy inflicts on American civilians, American POWs because "we are morally superior to them and meting out consequences makes us look less noble and is reason #17 that Muslims may erupt in seething rage.."<BR/><BR/><I>if we show in a HC proceeding that they are enemy combatants, there are no legal arguments for the prisoners. They can be detained indefinitely.</I> Then you would agree that anyone fighting the US in uniform and complying with Geneva is crazy? Because not only will an enemy out of uniform not draw immediate fire and has a lower risk of being killed in combat than a Geneva rule-follower.....you also argue if captured, the uniform soldier gets a harsher deal. No access to courts, indefinite detention as a "guilty" of being caught in uniform POW.<BR/>Seems like every enemy the US faces, if the mindset of SCOTUS and people persists, is well advised not to wear uniforms or not hide in and fire from high population civilian positions...Cedarfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00602418702398818596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-19636796809366657192008-06-22T04:05:00.000-05:002008-06-22T04:05:00.000-05:00The Golden Rule exists, we should treat people the...<I>The Golden Rule exists, we should treat people the way we want US citizens to be treated.</I><BR/><BR/>Other nations are welcome to lock our troops in their own versions of Gitmo in the unlikely event that America starts waging war out of uniform.<BR/><BR/><I>The US, as a matter of policy, should be better than this.</I><BR/><BR/>Why should we start now? We've gone 233 years without extending habeas rights to captured enemy forces in wartime. If it was good enough for George Washington, why isn't it good enough for George Bush?<BR/><BR/><I>Does anyone honestly believe that we couldn't prove in a habeas corpus proceeding that the Gitmo prisoners are enemy combatants?</I><BR/><BR/>If a habeas proceeding could be accomplished at zero cost in time and money that would be a valid argument. As it cannot, it isn't. Obviously we *could* do that. But since we've no obligation to do so and doing so would cause great inconvenience to the military, we shouldn't do it. Bush should simply ignore the court's ruling.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-499751868916089282008-06-22T02:01:00.000-05:002008-06-22T02:01:00.000-05:00Does anyone honestly believe that we couldn't prov...<I>Does anyone honestly believe that we couldn't prove in a habeas corpus proceeding that the Gitmo prisoners are enemy combatants?</I><BR/><BR/>This is one hundred percent correct. The issue then becomes who is an emeny combatant. But, really, that's been the issue all along.Seven Machoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04864522047626634770noreply@blogger.com